Talk:East Kent Light Railway

Duplication
This article appears to duplicate East Kent Railways Biscuittin 15:56, 28 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I have sorted out the multiple East Kent Railway articles. Biscuittin 20:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Stored here by Britmax 06:56, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Tilmanstone Colliery Halt / Elvington / Elvington Village
There seems to be some confusion about Elvington. Mitchell & Smith state that Tilmanstone Colliery was renamed to Elvington in 1925, and the 1938 OS map only shows one station between Eythorne and Knowlton. Others suggest that a new station called Elvington Village was built in 1925. Can anyone confirm whether this is a separate station? If so, then I'll create a page for it. Mjroots (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent additions by IP user 92.4.122.157
This IP user has added quite a lot of info to the article, unfortunately most of which seems to be unreferenced. I'm particularly intrigued by the references to Ripple Colliery and Wickhambreaux Colliery as I greatly expanded the Kent coalfield article and found no mention of either proposals when researching online. Mjroots (talk) 22:45, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent additions by IP user 92.4.122.157
That's me. I based most of the additions on Course's book, which contains the best map of the Kent coalfield and EKLR proposals that I've come across. I also live locally, so can access hard copies of contemporary maps in libraries and visit sites. The map distinguishes between boreholes and proposed collieries. Unfortunately he doesn't say where he got it from, but his list of proposed railways looks as if it depends on the Light Railway Orders which would be in the Public Records Office. There was only one station called Elvington. Basil Watkins 12:15, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

More material to come
I've found a source on Richborough Port, and can also (hopefully) access the original LRO's for the proposed lines. So I hope to be adding bits over the following months. Also, I could look at some of the station sites when I'm passing by in the area, to check their current status. Basil Watkins Basil Watkins (talk) 11:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Completed
That's about it, until I find other sources. The article is now a bit long and the layout headings might be improved; would it be better being divided into sub-articles? Basil WatkinsBasil Watkins (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Just from skimming across article, some gut reactions for you:
 * Article is not necessarily too long, but most of the sections cannot be easily split off without more information
 * Rolling stock section could be split off, however
 * Too many bullet points -- you need to restrict them to list sections. In many cases they should be replaced by sub-headings (eg anywhere that there is a multi-sentence paragraph following)
 * Keep up the good work. It looks promising.
 * EdJogg (talk) 09:11, 24 May 2008 (UTC)